405 ECONOMETRICS
Chapter # 8: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS:
THE PROBLEM OF ESTIMATION
Domodar N. Gujarati
Prof. M. El-Sakka
Dept of Economics Kuwait University
• The simplest possible multiple regression model is the three-variable
regression, with one dependent variable and two explanatory variables. In
this chapter we shall study this model. Throughout, we are concerned with
multiple linear regression models, that is, models linear in the parameters;
they may or may not be linear in the variables.
THE THREE-VARIABLE MODEL: NOTATION AND
ASSUMPTIONS
• Generalizing the two-variable PRF (2.4.2), we may write the three-variable
PRF as
• Yi = β1 + β2X2i + β3X3i + ui
(7.1.1)
• The coefficients β2 and β3 are called the partial regression coefficients.
Within the framework of the CLRM, we assume the following:
• Zero mean value of ui , or
• E(ui | X2i , X3i) = 0
for each i
(7.1.2)
• No serial correlation, or
• cov (ui , uj ) = 0
i≠j
(7.1.3)
• Homoscedasticity, or
• var (ui) = σ2
(7.1.4)
• Zero covariance between ui and each X variable, or
• cov (ui , X2i) = cov (ui , X3i) = 0
(7.1.5)
• No specification bias, or
• The model is correctly specified
(7.1.6)
• No exact collinearity between the X variables, or
• No exact linear relationship between X2 and X3
(7.1.7)
• Assumption (7.1.7), that there be no exact linear relationship between X2
and X3, i.e., no collinearity or no multicollinearity.
• Informally, no collinearity means none of the regressors can be written as
exact linear combinations of the remaining regressors in the model. Formally,
no collinearity means that there exists no set of numbers, λ2 and λ3, not both
zero such that
• λ2X2i + λ3X3i = 0
(7.1.8)
• If such an exact linear relationship exists, then X2 and X3 are said to be
collinear or linearly dependent. On the other hand, if (7.1.8) holds true only
when λ2 = λ3 = 0, then X2 and X3 are said to be linearly independent.
• X2i = −4X3i or X2i + 4X3i = 0
(7.1.9)
• If the two variables are linearly dependent, and if both are included in a
regression model, we will have perfect collinearity or an exact linear
relationship between the two regressors.
• Suppose that in (7.1.1) Y, X2, and X3 represent consumption expenditure,
income, and wealth of the consumer. if there is an exact linear relationship
between income and wealth, we have only one independent variable, not two,
and there is no way to assess the separate influence of income and wealth on
consumption.
• let X3i = 2X2i.
• Then the regression (7.1.1) becomes
• Yi = β1 + β2X2i + β3(2X2i) + ui
•
= β1 + (β2 + 2β3)X2i + ui
(7.1.10)
•
= β1 + αX2i + ui
• where α = (β2 + 2β3). That is, we in fact have a two-variable and not a three
variable regression.
• Moreover, if we run the regression (7.1.10) and obtain α, there is no way to
estimate the separate influence of X2 (= β2) and X3 (= β3) on Y, for α gives the
combined influence of X2 and X3 on Y.
INTERPRETATION OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATION
• Taking the conditional expectation of Y on both sides of (7.1.1), we obtain
• E(Yi | X2i, X3i) = β1 + β2X2i + β3i X3i
(7.2.1)
• As in the two-variable case, multiple regression analysis is regression
analysis conditional upon the fixed values of the regressors, and what we
obtain is the average or mean value of Y or the mean response of Y for the
given values of the regressors.
THE MEANING OF PARTIAL REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
• β2 measures the “direct” or the “net” effect of a unit change in X2 on the
mean value of Y, net of any effect that X3 may have on mean Y.
• β3 measures the “direct” or “net” effect of a unit change in X3 on the mean
value of Y, net of any effect that X2 may have on mean Y.
• How do we actually go about holding the influence of a regressor constant?
Recall child mortality example, Y = child mortality (CM), X2 = per capita
GNP (PGNP), and X3 = female literacy rate (FLR).
• Let us suppose we want to hold the influence of FLR constant, i.e., to get the
partial regression coefficient of CM with respect to PGNP . Since FLR may
have some effect on CM as well as PGNP, what we can do is to remove the
(linear) influence of FLR from both CM and PGNP by running the
regression of CM on FLR and that of PGNP on FLR separately and then
looking at the residuals obtained from these regressions. the following
regressions are obtained:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CMi = 263.8635 − 2.3905 FLRi + ˆu1i
(7.3.1)
se = (12.2249) (0.2133)
r2 = 0.6695
where ˆu1i represents the residual term of this regression.
PGNPi = −39.3033 + 28.1427 FLRi + ˆu2i
(7.3.2)
se
= (734.9526) (12.8211) r2 = 0.0721
where uˆ2i represents the residual term of this regression. Now
ˆu1i = (CMi − 263.8635 + 2.3905 FLRi)
(7.3.3)
represents that part of CM left after removing from it the (linear) influence
of FLR. Likewise,
ˆu2i = (PGNPi + 39.3033 − 28.1427 FLRi)
(7.3.4)
represents that part of PGNP left after removing from it the (linear)
influence of FLR. Therefore, if we now regress uˆ1i on uˆ2i , which are
“purified” of the (linear) influence of FLR, we obtain the net effect of PGNP
on CM? That is indeed the case. The regression results are as follows:
uˆ1i = −0.0056 uˆ2i
(7.3.5)
se = (0.0019)
r2 = 0.1152
• Note: This regression has no intercept term because the mean value of the
OLS residuals uˆ1i and uˆ2i is zero.
• The slope coefficient of −0.0056 now gives the “true” or net effect of a unit
change in PGNP on CM or the true slope of CM with respect to PGNP.
That is, it gives the partial regression coefficient of CM with respect to
PGNP, β2.
• To get the partial regression coefficient of CM with respect to FLR replicate
the above procedure by first regressing CM on PGNP and getting the
residuals from this regression (uˆ1i), then regressing FLR on PGNP and
obtaining the residuals from this regression ( uˆ2i), and then regressing uˆ1i
on uˆ2i.
• Fortunately, we do not have to do that, for the same job can be
accomplished fairly quickly and routinely by the OLS procedure discussed
in the next section.
OLS AND ML ESTIMATION OF THE PARTIAL REGRESSION
COEFFICIENTS
•
•
•
•
•
OLS Estimators
To find the OLS estimators, let us first write the sample regression function
(SRF) corresponding to the PRF of (7.1.1) as follows:
Yi = βˆ1 + βˆ2X2i + βˆ3X3i +uˆi
(7.4.1)
where uˆi is the residual term, the sample counterpart of the stochastic
disturbance term ui .
• As noted in Chapter 3, the OLS procedure consists in so choosing the values
of the unknown parameters that the residual sum of squares (RSS) Σuˆ2i is
as small as possible. Symbolically,
• Min Σuˆ2i = Σ(Yi − βˆ1 − βˆ2X2i − βˆ3X3i)2
(7.4.2)
• The most straightforward procedure to obtain the estimators that will
minimize (7.4.2) is to differentiate it with respect to the unknowns, set the
resulting expressions to zero, and solve them simultaneously. This
procedure gives the following normal equations
• Y¯ = βˆ1 + βˆ2X¯2 + βˆ3X¯3
(7.4.3)
• ΣYi X2i = βˆ1 ΣX2i + βˆ2 ΣX22i + βˆ3 ΣX2i X3i
(7.4.4)
• ΣYi X3i = βˆ1 ΣX3i + βˆ2 ΣX2i X3i + βˆ3 ΣX23i
(7.4.5)
• From Eq. (7.4.3) we see at once that
• βˆ1 = Y¯ − βˆ2X¯2 − βˆ3X¯3
(7.4.6)
• which is the OLS estimator of the population intercept β1.
• the following formulas are driven from the normal equations (7.4.3) to
(7.4.5):
• which give the OLS estimators of the population partial regression
coefficients β2 and β3, respectively.
• In passing, note the following:
• (1) Equations (7.4.7) and (7.4.8) are symmetrical in nature because one can
be obtained from the other by interchanging the roles of X2 and X3;
• (2) the denominators of these two equations are identical; and
• (3) the three-variable case is a natural extension of the two-variable case.
Variances and Standard Errors of OLS Estimators
• As in the two-variable case, we need the standard errors for two main
purposes: to establish confidence intervals and to test statistical hypotheses.
The relevant formulas are as follows:
• An unbiased estimator of σ2 is given by:
• σˆ2 = Σuˆ2i/(n− 3)
(7.4.18)
• The degrees of freedom are now (n− 3) because in estimating Σuˆ2i we must
first estimate β1, β2, and β3, which consume 3 df. The estimator σˆ2 can be
computed from (7.4.18) once the residuals are available, but it can also be
obtained more readily by using the following relation:
• Σuˆ2i = Σ y2i − βˆ2 Σ yix2i − βˆ3 Σ yix3i
(7.4.19)
• which is the three-variable counterpart of the relation given in (3.3.6).
• Properties of OLS Estimators
• 1. The three-variable regression line (surface) passes through the means Y¯,
X¯2, and X¯3, which is evident from (7.4.3). This property holds generally.
Thus in the k-variable linear regression model [a regressand and (k− 1)
regressors]
• Yi = β1 + β2X2i + β3X3i +· · ·+βkXki + ui
(7.4.20)
• we have
• βˆ1 = Y¯ − β2X¯2 − β3Xˆ3 −· · ·−βkX¯k
(7.4.21)
• 2. The mean value of the estimated Yi (= Yˆi) is equal to the mean value of the
actual Yi :
• Yˆi = βˆ1 + βˆ2X2i + βˆ3X3i
•
= (Y¯ − βˆ2X¯2 − βˆ3X¯3) + βˆ2X2i + βˆ3X3i
•
= Y¯ + βˆ2(X2i − X¯2) + βˆ3(X3i − X¯3)
(7.4.22)
•
= Y¯ + βˆ2x2i + βˆ3x3i
• Summing both sides of (7.4.22) over the sample values and dividing through
by the sample size n gives Y¯ˆ = Y¯. Notice that by virtue of (7.4.22) we can
write
• yˆi = βˆ2x2i + βˆ3x3i
(7.4.23)
• where yˆi = (Yˆi − Y¯). Therefore, the SRF (7.4.1) can be expressed in the
deviation form as:
• yi = yˆi +uˆi = βˆ2x2i + βˆ3x3i +uˆi
(7.4.24)
•
•
•
•
•
3. Σuˆi = u¯ˆ = 0, which can be verified from (7.4.24).
4. The residuals uˆi are uncorrelated with X2i and X3i , that is,
Σuˆi X2i = Σuˆi X3i = 0
5. The residuals uˆi are uncorrelated with Yˆi ; that is,
ΣuˆiYˆi = 0.
• 6. From (7.4.12) and (7.4.15) it is evident that as r23, the correlation
coefficient between X2 and X3, increases toward 1, the variances of βˆ2 and
βˆ3 increase for given values of σ2 and Σx22i or Σx23i . In the limit, when r23 =
1 (i.e., perfect collinearity), these variances become infinite.
• 7. Given the assumptions of the classical linear regression model, which are
spelled out in Section 7.1, one can prove that the OLS estimators of the
partial regression coefficients not only are linear and unbiased but also have
minimum variance in the class of all linear unbiased estimators. In short,
they are BLUE: Put differently, they satisfy the Gauss-Markov theorem.
THE MULTIPLE COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION R2 AND THE
MULTIPLE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION R
• In the three variable model we would like to know the proportion of the
variation in Y explained by the variables X2 and X3 jointly. The quantity
that gives this information is known as the multiple coefficient of
determination and is denoted by R2; conceptually it is akin to r2.
• To derive R2, we may follow the derivation of r2 given in Section 3.5. Recall
that
• Yi = βˆ1 + βˆ2X2i + βˆ3X3i +uˆI
(7.5.1)
•
= Yˆi +uˆi
• Yˆi is an estimator of true E(Yi | X2i , X3i). Eq. (7.5.1) may be written in the
deviation form as:
• yi = βˆ2x2i + βˆ3x3i +uˆI =
(7.5.2)
• = yˆi + uˆi
• Squaring (7.5.2) on both sides and summing over the sample values, we
obtain
• Σy2i = Σyˆ2i + Σuˆ2i + 2Σ yˆi uˆi
(7.5.3)
• = Σyˆ2i + Σuˆ2i
• Verbally, Eq. (7.5.3) states that the total sum of squares (TSS) equals the
(ESS) + the (RSS). Now substituting for ˆu2i from (7.4.19), we obtain
• Σy2i = Σyˆ2i + Σy2i − βˆ2 Σ yix2i − βˆ3 Σ yix3i
• which, on rearranging, gives
• ESS = Σyˆ2i = βˆ2 Σ yix2i + βˆ3 Σ yix3i
(7.5.4)
• Now, by definition
• R2 =ESS/TSS
•
= (βˆ2 Σ yix2i + βˆ3 Σ yix3i) / Σ y2i
(7.5.5)
• Note that R2, like r2, lies between 0 and 1. If it is 1, the fitted regression line
explains 100 percent of the variation in Y. On the other hand, if it is 0, the
model does not explain any of the variation in Y. The fit of the model is said
to be “better’’ the closer is R2 to 1.
• The three-or-more-variable R is the coefficient of multiple correlation,
denoted by, and it is a measure of the degree of association between Y and
all the explanatory variables jointly.
• R is always taken to be positive. In practice, however, R is of little
importance. The more meaningful quantity is R2.
EXAMPLE 7.1: CHILD MORTALITY IN RELATION TO
PER CAPITA GNP AND FEMALE LITERACY RATE
• In Chapter 6 we considered the behavior of child mortality (CM) in relation
to per capita GNP (PGNP). There we found that PGNP has a negative
impact on CM, as one would expect. Now let us bring in female literacy as
measured by the female literacy rate (FLR). A priori, we expect that FLR
too will have a negative impact on CM. Now when we introduce both the
variables in our model, we need to net out the influence of each of the
regressors. That is, we need to estimate the (partial) regression coefficients
of each regressor. Thus our model is:
• CMi = β1 + β2PGNPi + β3FLRi + ui
(7.6.1)
• The necessary data are given in Table 6.4. Keep in mind that CM is the
number of deaths of children under five per 1000 live births, PGNP is per
capita GNP in 1980, and FLR is measured in percent. Our sample consists
of 64 countries.
• Using the Eviews3 statistical package, we obtained the following results:
•
•
•
•
CMi = 263.6416 − 0.0056 PGNPi − 2.2316 FLRi
se = (11.5932) (0.0019)
(0.2099)
R2 (7.6.2) = 0.7077
R¯2 = 0.6981
Observe the partial slope coefficient of PGNP, namely, −0.0056, it is
precisely the same as that obtained from the three-step procedure discussed
before. But we did so without the three-step cumbersome procedure.
• 0.0056 is the partial regression coefficient of PGNP, with the influence of
FLR held constant, as PGNP increases, say, by a dollar, on average, child
mortality goes down by 0.0056 units. To make it more economically
interpretable, if the per capita GNP goes up by a thousand dollars, on
average, the number of deaths of children under age 5 goes down by about
5.6 per thousand live births.
• The coefficient −2.2316 tells us that holding the influence of PGNP constant,
on average, the number of deaths of children under 5 goes down by about
2.23 per thousand live births as the female literacy rate increases by one
percentage point.
• The intercept value of about 263, mechanically interpreted, means that if
the values of PGNP and FLR rate were fixed at zero, the mean child
mortality would be about 263 deaths per thousand live births. The R2 value
of about 0.71 means that about 71 percent of the variation in child mortality
is explained by PGNP and FLR, a fairly high value considering that the
maximum value of R2 can at most be 1.
• Regression on Standardized Variables
• A variable is said to be standardized or in standard deviation units if it is
expressed in terms of deviation from its mean and divided by its standard
deviation. For our child mortality example, the results are as follows:
• CM* = − 0.2026 PGNP*i − 0.7639 FLR*i
(7.6.3)
• se = (0.0713)
(0.0713)
r2 = 0.7077
• Note: The starred variables are standardized variables.
• As you can see from this regression, with FLR held constant, a standard
deviation increase in PGNP leads, on average, to a 0.2026 standard
deviation decrease in CM. Similarly, holding PGNP constant, a standard
deviation increase in FLR, on average, leads to a 0.7639 standard deviation
decrease in CM. Relatively speaking, female literacy has more impact on
child mortality than per capita GNP.
SIMPLE REGRESSION IN THE CONTEXT OF MULTIPLE
REGRESSION: INTRODUCTION TO SPECIFICATION BIAS
• Assume that (7.6.1) is the “true” model explaining the behavior of child
mortality in relation to per capita GNP and female literacy rate (FLR). But
suppose we disregard FLR and estimate the following simple regression:
• Yi = α1 + α2X2i + u1i
(7.7.1)
• where Y = CM and X2 = PGNP.
• Since (7.6.1) is the true model, estimating (7.7.1) would constitute a
specification error; omitting the variable X3.
• Now will the coefficient of PGNP in (7.7.1) provide an unbiased estimate of
the true impact of PGNP on CM, knowing that we have omitted the variable
X3 (FLR) from the model? As you would suspect, in general αˆ2 will not be
an unbiased estimator of the true β2.
• Let us run the regression (7.7.1), which gave the following results.
• CMi = 157.4244 − 0.0114 PGNPi
(7.7.2)
• se = (9.8455) (0.0032)
r2 = 0.1662
• Observe the following:
• 1. In absolute terms, the PGNP coefficient has increased from 0.0056 to
0.0114, almost a two-fold increase.
• 2. The standard errors are different.
• 3. The intercept values are different.
• 4. The r2 values are dramatically different, although it is generally the case
that, as the number of regressors in the model increases, the r2 value
increases.
•
•
•
•
•
Now suppose that you regress child mortality on female literacy rate,
disregarding PGNP. You will obtain the following results:
CMi = 263.8635 − 2.3905 FLRi
se = (21.2249) (0.2133)
r2 = 0.6696
(7.7.3)
Again if you compare the results of this (misspecified) regression with the
“true” multiple regression, you will see that the results are different,
although the difference here is not as noticeable as in the case of regression
(7.7.2). The important point to note is that serious consequences can ensue if
you misfit a model.
R2 AND THE ADJUSTED R2
• An important property of R2 is that as the number of regressors increases,
R2 almost invariably increases and never decreases. Stated differently, an
additional X variable will not decrease R2.
• Compare, for instance, regression (7.7.2) or (7.7.3) with (7.6.2). To see this,
recall the definition of the coefficient of determination:
• R2 = ESS / TSS = 1 − (RSS / TSS)
(7.8.1)
•
= 1 − (Σuˆ2i / Σy2i).
• Now Σy2i is independent of the number of X variables in the model because
it is simply Σ(Yi − Y¯)2. The RSS, Σuˆ2i , however, depends on the number of
regressors present in the model. Intuitively, it is clear that as the number of
X variables increases, Σuˆ2i is likely to decrease (at least it will not increase);
and R2 will increase.
• To compare two R2 terms, one must take into account the number of X
variables present in the model. This can be done readily if we consider an
alternative coefficient of determination, which is as follows:
• R¯2 = 1 − (Σuˆ2i / (n− k)) / (Σy2i /(n− 1))
(7.8.2)
• where k = the number of parameters in the model including the intercept
term. (In the three-variable regression, k = 3. The R2 thus defined is known
as the adjusted R2, denoted by R¯2.
• Equation (7.8.2) can also be written as
• R¯2 = 1 − σˆ2 / S2Y
(7.8.3)
• where σˆ2 is the residual variance, an unbiased estimator of true σ2, and S2Y
is the sample variance of Y. It is easy to see that R¯2 and R2 are related
because, substituting (7.8.1) into (7.8.2), we obtain
• R¯2 = [1 − (1 − R2)] [(n− 1) / (n− k)]
(7.8.4)
• It is immediately apparent from Eq. (7.8.4) that (1) for k > 1, R¯2 < R2 which
implies that as the number of X variables increases, the adjusted R2
increases less than the unadjusted R2; and (2) R¯2 can be negative, although
R2 is necessarily nonnegative. In case R¯2 turns out to be negative in an
application, its value is taken as zero.
• Which R2 should one use in practice? the adjusted R2, as given in (7.8.4),
that is reported by most statistical packages along with the conventional R2.
The reader is well advised to treat R¯2 as just another summary statistic.
• Comparing Two R2 Values
• In comparing two models on the basis of the coefficient of determination,
the sample size n and the dependent variable must be the same; the
explanatory variables may take any form. Thus for the models
• ln Yi = β1 + β2X2i + β3X3i + ui
(7.8.6)
•
Yi = α1 + α2X2i + α3X3i + ui
(7.8.7)
• The computed R2 terms cannot be compared. the two dependent variables are
not the same thing: As noted in Chapter 6, a change in lnY gives a relative or
proportional change in Y, whereas a change in Y gives an absolute change.
Therefore, varYˆi/varYi is not equal to var (ln Yi)/var (ln Yi); that is, the two
coefficients of determination are not the same.
• Allocating R2 among Regressors
• Let us return to our child mortality example. We saw in (7.6.2) that the two
regressors PGNP and FLR explain 0.7077 or 70.77 percent of the variation
in child mortality. But now consider the regression (7.7.2) where we
dropped the FLR variable and as a result the r2 value dropped to 0.1662.
Does that mean the difference in the r2 value of 0.5415 (0.7077 − 0.1662) is
attributable to the dropped variable FLR? On the other hand, if you
consider regression (7.7.3), where we dropped the PGNP variable, the r2
value drops to 0.6696. Does that mean the difference in the r2 value of
0.0381 (0.7077 − 0.6696) is due to the omitted variable PGNP?
• The question then is: Can we allocate the multiple R2 of 0.7077 between the
two regressors, PGNP and FLR, in this manner? Unfortunately, we cannot
do so. The best practical advice is that there is little point in trying to
allocate the R2 value to its constituent regressors.
• The “Game’’ of Maximizing R¯ 2
• Sometimes researchers play the game of maximizing R¯2, that is, choosing
the model that gives the highest R¯2. But this may be dangerous, for in
regression analysis our objective is not to obtain a high R¯2 per se but
rather to obtain dependable estimates of the true population regression
coefficients and draw statistical inferences about them.
• In empirical analysis it is not unusual to obtain a very high R¯2 but find that
some of the regression coefficients either are statistically insignificant or have
signs that are contrary to a priori expectations. Therefore, the researcher
should be more concerned about the logical or theoretical relevance of the
explanatory variables to the dependent variable and their statistical
significance. If in this process we obtain a high R¯2, well and good; on the
other hand, if R¯2 is low, it does not mean the model is necessarily bad.
PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
• Explanation of Simple and Partial Correlation Coefficients
• In Chapter 3 we introduced the coefficient of correlation r as a measure of
the degree of linear association between two variables. For the threevariable regression model we can compute three correlation coefficients: r12
(correlation between Y and X2), r13 (correlation coefficient between Y and
X3), and r23 (correlation coefficient between X2 and X3). These correlation
coefficients are called gross or simple correlation coefficients, or correlation
coefficients of zero order. These coefficients can be computed by the
definition of correlation coefficient given in (3.5.13).
• But now consider this question: Does, say, r12 in fact measure the “true”
degree of (linear) association between Y and X2 when a third variable X3
may be associated with both of them? In general, r12 is not likely to reflect
the true degree of association between Y and X2 in the presence of X3. As a
matter of fact, it is likely to give a false impression of the nature of
association between Y and X2. Therefore, what we need is a correlation
coefficient that is independent of the influence, if any, of X3 on X2 and Y.
Conceptually, it is similar to the partial regression coefficient. We define:
• r1 2.3 = partial correlation coefficient between Y and X2, holding X3 constant
• r1 3.2 = partial correlation coefficient between Y and X3, holding X2 constant
• r2 3.1 = partial correlation coefficient between X2 and X3, holding Y constant
• These partial correlations are:
• The partial correlations given in Eqs. (7.11.1) to (7.11.3) are called first
order correlation coefficients. By order we mean the number of secondary
subscripts. Thus r1 2.3 4 would be the correlation coefficient of order two,
r12.345 would be the correlation coefficient of order three, and so on. As
noted previously, r12, r13, and so on are called simple or zero-order
correlations. The interpretation of, say, r1 2.3 4 is that it gives the coefficient of
correlation between Y and X2, holding X3 and X4 constant.
•
•
•
•
Interpretation of Simple and Partial Correlation Coefficients
observe the following:
1. Even if r12 = 0, r1 2.3 will not be zero unless r13 or r23 or both are zero.
2. If r12 = 0 and r13 and r23 are nonzero and are of the same sign, r1 2.3 will be
negative, whereas if they are of the opposite signs, it will be positive.
• An example will make this point clear. Let Y = crop yield, X2 = rainfall, and
X3 = temperature. Assume r12 = 0, that is, no association between crop yield
and rainfall. Assume further that r13 is positive and r23 is negative. Then, as
(7.11.1) shows, r1 2.3 will be positive; that is, holding temperature constant,
there is a positive association between yield and rainfall. This seemingly
paradoxical result, however, is not surprising. Since temperature X3 affects
both yield Y and rainfall X2, in order to find out the net relationship
between crop yield and rainfall, we need to remove the influence of the
“nuisance” variable temperature. This example shows how one might be
misled by the simple coefficient of correlation.
• 3. The terms r1 2.3 and r12 (and similar comparisons) need not have the same
sign.
• 4. In the two-variable case we have seen that r2 lies between 0 and 1. The
same property holds true of the squared partial correlation coefficients.
Using this fact, the reader should verify that one can obtain the following
expression from (7.11.1):
• 0 ≤ r 212 + r 213 + r 223 − 2r12r13r23 ≤ 1
(7.11.4)
• which gives the interrelationships among the three zero-order correlation
coefficients. Similar expressions can be derived from Eqs. (7.9.3) and (7.9.4).
• 5. Suppose that r13 = r23 = 0. Does this mean that r12 is also zero? The answer
is obvious from (7.11.4). The fact that Y and X3 and X2 and X3 are
uncorrelated does not mean that Y and X2 are uncorrelated. In passing,
note that the expression r 212.3 may be called the coefficient of partial
determination and may be interpreted as the proportion of the variation in
Y not explained by the variable X3 that has been explained
• by the inclusion of X2 into the model (see exercise 7.5). Conceptually it is
similar to R2.
• Before moving on, note the following relationships between R2, simple
correlation coefficients, and partial correlation coefficients:
• R2 = r 2 12 + r 2 13 − 2r12r13r23 / (1 − r 2 23)
(7.11.5)
• R2 = r 2 12 + (1 − r 2 12) r 2 13.2
(7.11.6)
• R2 = r 2 13 + (1 − r 2 13) r 2 12.3
(7.11.7)
• In concluding this section, consider the following: It was stated previously
that R2 will not decrease if an additional explanatory variable is introduced
into the model, which can be seen clearly from (7.11.6). This equation states
that the proportion of the variation in Y explained by X2 and X3 jointly is
the sum of two parts: the part explained by X2 alone (= r 2 12) and the part
not explained by X2 (= 1 − r 2 12) times the proportion that is explained by X3
after holding the influence of X2 constant. Now R2 > r 2 12 so long as r 2 13.2 >
0. At worst, r 2 13.2 will be zero, in which case R2 = r 2 12.
An Introduction to E-views
• The main EViews menu contains:
•
•
•
•
Getting Data into EViews
File/Open/EViews workfile
select data File, e.g. Excel
Eviews opens the Excel Read wizard.
• click on Next then click on Finish
• To compute, for example, a table of basic descriptive statistics for M1, simply
click on the View button, then select Descriptive Statistics & Tests/Stats
Table. EViews will compute descriptive statistics for M1 and change the series
view to display a table of results.
• to examine a line graph of the series, simply select View/Graph... to bring up
the Graph Options dialog, and select Line & Symbol
• Estimating a Regression Model
• Select Quick from the main menu and choose Estimate Equation
• The dialog is initialized to estimate the equation using the LS - Least Squares
method
EXAMPLE 7.3: THE COBB–DOUGLAS PRODUCTION FUNCTION:
MORE ON FUNCTIONAL FORM
• The specific example we discuss is the celebrated Cobb–Douglas production
function of production theory. The Cobb–Douglas production function, in
its stochastic form, may be expressed as
•
•
•
•
•
•
where Y = output
X2 = labor input
X3 = capital input
u = stochastic disturbance term
e = base of natural logarithm
From Eq. (7.9.1) it is clear that the relationship between output and the two
inputs is nonlinear. However, if we log-transform this model, we obtain:
• ln Yi = ln β1 + β2 ln X2i + β3 ln X3i + ui
•
= β0 + β2 ln X2i + β3 ln X3i + ui
(7.9.2)
• where β0 = ln β1.
• Thus written, the model is linear in the parameters β0, β2, and β3 and is
therefore a linear regression model. Notice, though, it is nonlinear in the
variables Y and X but linear in the logs of these variables. In short, (7.9.2) is
a log-log, double-log, or log-linear model, the multiple regression.
• The properties of the Cobb–Douglas production function are quite well
known:
• 1. β2 is the (partial) elasticity of output with respect to the labor input, that
is, it measures the percentage change in output for, say, a 1 percent change
in the labor input, holding the capital input constant.
• 2. β3 is the (partial) elasticity of output with respect to the capital input,
holding the labor input constant.
• 3. The sum (β2 + β3) gives information about the returns to scale, that is, the
response of output to a proportionate change in the inputs. If this sum is 1,
then there are constant returns to scale, that is, doubling the inputs will
double the output, tripling the inputs will triple the output, and so on. If the
sum is less than 1, there are decreasing returns to scale—doubling the inputs
will less than double the output. Finally, if the sum is greater than 1, there
are increasing returns to scale—doubling the inputs will more than double
the output.
• If you have a k-variable log-linear model:
• ln Yi = β0 + β2 ln X2i + β3 ln X3i +· · ·+βk ln Xki + ui
(7.9.3)
• each of the (partial) regression coefficients, β2 through βk, is the (partial)
elasticity of Y with respect to variables X2 through Xk.
• Assuming that the model (7.9.2) satisfies the assumptions of the classical
linear regression model, we obtained the following regression by the OLS
• ln Y^i = −3.3384 + 1.4988 ln X2i + 0.4899 ln X3i
(2.4495) (0.5398)
(0.1020)
• t=
(−1.3629) (2.7765)
(4.8005)
• R2 = 0.8890 df = 12 R¯2 = 0.8705
(7.9.4)
• From Eq. (7.9.4) we see that in output elasticities of labor and capital were
1.4988 and 0.4899, respectively. In other words, over the period of study,
holding the capital input constant, a 1 percent increase in the labor input
led on the average to about a 1.5 percent increase in the output. Similarly,
holding the labor input constant, a 1 percent increase in the capital input
led on the average to about a 0.5 percent increase in the output. Adding the
two output elasticities, we obtain 1.9887, which gives the value of the
returns to scale parameter. As is evident, over the period of the study, this
sector is characterized by increasing returns to scale
• From a purely statistical viewpoint, the estimated regression line fits the
data quite well. The R2 value of 0.8890 means that about 89 percent of the
variation in the (log of) output is explained by the (logs of) labor and capital.
EVIEWS OUTPUT
Variable
C
LL
LK
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat
Dependent Variable: LY
Method: Least Squares
Date: 12/14/09 Time: 17:51
Sample: 1958 1972
Included observations: 15
Coefficient
Std. Error
-3.338455
2.449508
1.498767
0.539803
0.489858
0.102043
0.889030 Mean dependent var
0.870535 S.D. dependent var
0.074810 Akaike info criterion
0.067158 Schwarz criterion
19.28156 F-statistic
0.891083 Prob(F-statistic)
t-Statistic
-1.362908
2.776509
4.800487
Prob.
0.1979
0.0168
0.0004
10.09653
0.207914
-2.170875
-2.029265
48.06885
0.000002